Week 2 ETEC 561

Section 2

Epistemology (the study of what and how we come to know) is discussed in multiple chapters in this section. Distinguish epistemology from instructional methods or theories. What are the differences between theories, methods, or models of learning and epistemologies or underlying beliefs about ways of knowing?

Essentially, epistemology is a general science or view concerning how we (people) come to know the material we learn.  Experience and socio-economic circumstances in conjunction with the biological inputs leading to increased knowledge.

Instructional methods and theories discuss approaches to instruction.  Considered is the path of instruction to be used, whether through lectures and textbooks or by more hands on problem solving.  The framework of how the material will be presented.

Models are used to help learners “see” learning objectives.  They are used to improve comprehension and understanding of material presented.

Theories such as positivism and relativism are design practices used in the development of curriculum. 

Methods are steps used within a particular design practice to deliver or guide the student to the objectives of a particular course of study.

Chapters in this section present two contrasting epistemic stances: positivist and relativist. However, a third stance, the contextualist or hermeneutical, is also widely recognized. This stance falls somewhere between the strictly objectivist/positivist beliefs about knowing and the purely subjectivist/relativist stance. While designers and educators with a positivist stance generally apply behaviorist principles to the design and development of instruction, those with either a contextualist or relativist epistemological framework employ constructivist theories and methods. However, relativists ascribe to radical constructivist approaches, while contextualists draw upon social constructivist theories and models. Based on what you’ve read about positivist and relativist epistemologies, as well as behaviorist and constructivist approaches, try to more fully describe a contextualist epistemology. How might it differ from either a relativist or positivist stance, and how might social constructivism differ from either behaviorist or radical constructivist approached to learning and instruction?

Contextualist epistemology- A learning system or plan consistent with students processing and internalizing new information as it relates to their current realities.  Students then apply this new information as a way to “make sense” of the introduced knowledge and how it can be used in problem-solving.

Relativist concepts are very similar to contextualist concepts in that both require the lesson design to include smaller parts and components that will lead the student to an acceptable understanding of the lesson material as a whole.  Where a contextualist stance differs from a positivist stance is in allowing the student an active role in what they learn and how they apply their new knowledge.  There is no absolute truth according to the relativist as there is in a positivist stance.  Instructors in a positivist class are lecturers and students are required to repeat information learned in the context and reality of the professor.  On the other hand, in a constructivist model, roles of instructors may change as the students acquire and apply newly internalized information.  Instructors become more of a guide in the learning experience.  Problem solving is more at the heart of the class material. Essentially all constructivist theories overlap and share similar meaning.  VyGotsky’s radical social constructivism is similar to contextualists in that both consider student internalization of knowledge.  This allows for learning within that student’s accepted current reality.  However, VyGotsky adds the consideration of a student’s social context coming into play as an essential part of how they learn. 

Von Glaserfield suggests knowledge is not explored but subjective, cognitively constructed through our own experiences.  In his view there is no existence of external reality.  Von Glaserfield suggests students incorporate new information to “fit” their reality and as long as it “makes sense” to their knowledge base it will be viable.

A behaviorist view is completely different from constructivism or contextualist learning beliefs.  It is usually possible to use multiple learning sciences to create a more rounded and deeper understanding of teaching material.  For example some portions of the lesson design could have a lecture portion to lay a foundation from which role play or problem solving etc. could be added to the design.  I believe radical forms of any learning theories stand in the way of delivering a richer and deeper experience for the student learner.

Differing epistemic stances lead to differing approaches to learning and instruction, and ultimately to problem-solving. Explain differences in problem-solving when approached from behaviorist and constructivist perspectives. How do the approaches differ in both the nature of the problem to be solved and in facilitating the problem solving process? Finally, what effect might these differences have on learner motivation?

Behaviorist problem solving infers one correct answer and one correct way of reaching the correct conclusion.  Instructors lay out information to be learned and objectives to be accomplished.  Knowledge itself is separate from the students and their past experiences and social contexts.  Therefore problem solving is strait forward and consists of a defined path leading to the answer.

Constructivist perspective of problem solving lies in knowledge as it is constructed from the student perspective.  Instructors act as guides for learning.  Content to be learned can change and should in fact become a part of the students’ reality so the student him/herself are also changed.  Problem solving in this learning environment can consist of more than one path leading to possibly more than one answer depending on the understanding and circumstance of the student learner.

The motivational factors behind student learning are varied.  If the student is in a required course in order to keep their job they may or may not be affected by either behavioral or constructionist epistemologies.  I see motivational factors as another consideration when creating instructional design.  As Reiser stated it is possible to build valid approaches to understanding and influencing learner motivation to contribute in a learning environment and design whether it is behavioral or contextual.